Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hydrogen energy => Electrolysis of H20 and Hydrogen on demand generation => Topic started by: Farlander on February 21, 2010, 06:09:41 AM

Title: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: Farlander on February 21, 2010, 06:09:41 AM
Well, I see not much has changed since I last logged on about a year ago.  The site looks much worse, but otherwise the same bullcrap is still flying around.

Please see the wikipedia article containing this quote:
"The amount of electrical energy that must be added [in electrolysis] equals the change in free energy of the reaction plus the losses in the system. The losses can (in theory) be arbitrarily close to zero, so the maximum thermodynamic efficiency equals the enthalpy change divided by the free energy change of the reaction. In most cases, the electric input is larger than the enthalpy change of the reaction, so some energy is released in the form of heat. In some cases, for instance, in the electrolysis of steam into hydrogen and oxygen at high temperature, the opposite is true. Heat is absorbed from the surroundings, and the heating value of the produced hydrogen is higher than the electric input."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

This seems to state that overunity energy production could be obtained by electrolyzing water under heat and pressure, such as in an engine perhaps?  Could the process be self sustaining?
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on February 21, 2010, 06:15:36 AM
lets just say the key to all this is not perpetual energy but the key to all this is 'Stored' energy.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: haithar on April 25, 2010, 12:09:28 PM
1As = 1C will make 0.19cm³ gas total at 100% efficiency. Source: http://www.chemieonline.de/forum/showpost.php?%20p=263191&postcount=14 (http://www.chemieonline.de/forum/showpost.php?%20p=263191&postcount=14)

The energy needed for that is depending on your voltage, 1,23V is the absolute minimum but depending on the material it's probably around 2V. That would be 2V * 1As = 2 Joule for 0.19 cm³ at 100% efficiency.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: Low-Q on May 12, 2010, 07:39:09 AM
Well, I see not much has changed since I last logged on about a year ago.  The site looks much worse, but otherwise the same bullcrap is still flying around.

Please see the wikipedia article containing this quote:
"The amount of electrical energy that must be added [in A] equals the change in free energy of the reaction plus the losses in the system. The losses can (in theory) be arbitrarily close to zero, so the A thermodynamic efficiency equals the enthalpy change divided by the free energy change of the reaction. In most cases, the electric input is larger than the enthalpy change of the reaction, so some energy is released in the form of heat. In some cases, for instance, in the electrolysis of steam into hydrogen and oxygen at high temperature, the opposite is true. Heat is absorbed from the surroundings, and the heating value of the produced hydrogen is higher than the electric input."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

This seems to state that overunity energy production could be obtained by electrolyzing water under heat and pressure, such as in an engine perhaps?  Could the process be self sustaining?
Conventional electrolysis have poor efficiency. However, using clean water, and boost the voltage in a high resistant water, will finally reach a chatastrophic breakdown of the water molecules. As the voltage rises, nothing happens, but at a given voltage, all that voltage turns into pure current as the watermolecules breaks down and produce great amount of HHO. This process can be repeated at a given frequency, and was the main key why Stan Myers invention worked so well back in the 80s. Many readers of Mayers findings have been confused by his claims about resonant frequencies, but this was just a misguide to confuse people, and cover the truth about his inventon - to protect it. In that particulat circuit there is a blocking diode which will prevent resonance, but it will help charging the "capacitor", which the fuelcell is, to a high voltage almost without applying current as it charges.

PS! The laws of thermodynamics are not violated even if it seems there is more energy out that in.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: stevie1001 on May 13, 2010, 10:20:20 PM
Conventional A have poor efficiency. However, using clean water, and boost the voltage in a high resistant water, will finally reach a chatastrophic breakdown of the water molecules. As the voltage rises, nothing happens, but at a given voltage, all that voltage turns into pure current as the watermolecules breaks down and produce great amount of HHO. This process can be repeated at a given frequency, and was the main key why Stan Myers invention worked so well back in the 80s. Many readers of Mayers findings have been confused by his claims about resonant frequencies, but this was just a misguide to confuse people, and cover the truth about his inventon - to protect it. In that particulat circuit there is a blocking diode which will prevent resonance, but it will help charging the "capacitor", which the fuelcell is, to a high voltage almost without applying current as it charges.

PS! The laws of thermodynamics are not violated even if it seems there is more energy out that in.

Sorry for this possible rude awakening, but your story is based on what Peter Lindemann is saying on youtube.
However, Peter came back on that one.
He couldn't replicate his own words.
So, that theory is blown to pieces.
No massive volts to amps......

Steve


Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: Low-Q on May 14, 2010, 04:04:10 PM
Sorry for this possible rude awakening, but your story is based on what Peter Lindemann is saying on youtube.
However, Peter came back on that one.
He couldn't replicate his own words.
So, that theory is blown to pieces.
No massive volts to amps......

Steve
That is correct. I was watching his presentation recently, and it all did sound good, but I now know it is possible to produce HHO with regular clean water with relatively low voltage. My recent test is done with  range of 10 - 40V and all produce hydrogen and oxygen.

Vidar
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: billmehess on May 15, 2010, 07:55:06 AM
That is correct. I was watching his presentation recently, and it all did sound good, but I now know it is possible to produce HHO with regular clean water with relatively low voltage. My recent test is done with  range of 10 - 40V and all produce hydrogen and oxygen.

Vidar
I am curious what is the least amount of voltage and amps necessary to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: gyulasun on May 15, 2010, 10:08:18 AM
Hi Folks,

Have you read on Prof Kanarev electrolyzis? Here is a Microsoft Word doc file on it:
http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/articles/ELECTROLYSIS%20OF%20WATER.zip

and the video:
http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/video/VIDEOELECTROLYS.wmv

Some more from him:
http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/water/index.html

I managed to convert the Word doc file into a PDF file and uploaded to the Downloads section:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=387 

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: gauschor on May 15, 2010, 01:21:03 PM
Hmmm.... do you think it would be possible to do electrolysis with a wimshurst? There was once a rumour that electrolysis works best with high voltage, low amperage and pulsed DC... so that would all be produced by such a device. Well, never tried it out though...
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: mscoffman on May 15, 2010, 07:12:33 PM
Hmmm.... do you think it would be possible to do electrolysis with a wimshurst? There was once a rumour that electrolysis works best with high voltage, low amperage and pulsed DC... so that would all be produced by such a device. Well, never tried it out though...

@gauschor;

There is link to a video showing a Meyer's set-up.
Be prepared to stop the video at 1:03 (of 2:52)
ignore the audio, and just look at the diagram;

http://pesn.com/2010/05/14/9501652_Water-for-Fuel_tech_among_Pepsi_Refresh_contestants/

Comment: Yes, I think you are correct, please refer to the diagram
at time 1:04 in the above video. Ok, you have a standard
(3-phase rectified) Automotive Alternator (without battery charge
regulator). When the belt drive motor spins the rotor this it enables
the primary DC power 400-1600watts to the electrolyser. This supplies
the bulk of the primary power. Next you notice that he modulates the
field coil (rotor in this case) of the alternator with a pulse generator.
This converts the alternator into sort of a magnetic amplifier that
modulates the DC power with pulses. This is the phonon injector.
But here comes the unique part. The belt drive from the motor to
the alternator functions as a high voltage static electric generator
injector like a Van De Graf generator and High Voltage flows (leaks)
from the alternator across the link into the electrolyser. This high
voltage aligns the cavitation bubble collapse in the electrolyser. So
you get some overunity because of the static electric power itself
but much more when you use the high voltage to augment CF cold
fusion in the electrolyser through alignment of the cavitation
bubbles...So there you have it...You can do all these circuit things
in different ways, but unless you have all three in one circuit you
won't get the good stuff.

Conclusions:
Stan Meyer himself may have not been aware what was actually
occurring. It appears that the dune buggy has nothing to do with
the much vaunted electrolyser resonance.
 
:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: Low-Q on May 15, 2010, 09:52:49 PM
I am curious what is the least amount of voltage and amps necessary to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
You will produce HHO as soon as the voltage is more than 0V. My tapwater have a volt/amp ratio of approx 1/20 - which means 1 ampére for each 20V supplied. At 10V I measure 0.5 amps. I am currently using 36V, and the electric current is now 1.8A. That is about 65W. The generator gets quite hot after an  hour, but it seams it stops heating at about 50 degrees Celsius - which is reached after an hour or so.

The Volt/Ampére ratio depends on the water and the shape and distance of the electrodes. In my case I use stainless steel-wires wound on a plexiglass holder (Bought on ebay).

I have a pair of 1200W class D audio amplifiers which I want to test with square pulses upp to 80V. I can also bridge them to achieve about 160V. That should give about 1200W HHO generator at 8 amps ;D

Vidar
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: billmehess on May 16, 2010, 03:53:03 AM
I put together 4 water batteries using 4ea 32" long 3"  diameter pvc tubes. Each tube had a 3/4 diameter copper rod 32" long and a 3/4 "diameter zink coated rod also 32" in length.  I coated the rod with a dielectric material to prevent the zink coating from being "flacked off" due to the electrolysis effect.
Each tube generates around .8 volts at around 2.5 ma. each. I connected them in series and got 3.2 volts of course still at 2.5 ma.
My electrolyzer is using stainless steel wire with the cathode and anode about 1/2" away from each other.
I am using baking soda in the ectrolyzer with plain tap water. When "turned on" the voltage drops to around 2.56 volts within about 8 hrs but then stablizes at this voltage.
If I change the water about twice a week the process is repeated. I have been running this now for over a month. So 2.56 volts at 2.5 ma will produce H continously. Adding additional copper tube increase the current to increase the H being produced.
The foot print of the 4 tubes is 50 in sq.
Since they are only 32 " tall a like stack above them would generate twice the H with the same foot print.

Obviously this is very scalable.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: mscoffman on May 17, 2010, 05:24:40 PM
@billmehess;

That water battery has enough power to run a Jt JouleTheif.
It would be interesting to step up the voltage that you are
running to run the electrolyser as pulses. Also you should think
about using standard NaOH - Lye or KOH - Potassium Hydroxide
as the electrolyte. I'd be concerned that carbon in the baking
soda might start to build up after a while and short things out.
Using a manufactured plate electrolyser would not be out of
the question.

I've also done some design thinking about using some available
inexpensive Bernolli pumps and lawn watering timers to drain
and refill the water battery automatically. The water batteries
could be set up to be overfill proof. And the water could be
set up to drain somewhat uphill for a device installed in a
basement. I think all electronic water timers use a battery
or solar cell to keep their electronics running. That would make
sense to support that power from an additional water cell or
two. They probably all use water pressure to activate their
valves.

:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: billmehess on May 17, 2010, 10:41:31 PM
Thank you Mark on your input. The H production is interesting but it has (as is so often the case) lead to something else using the same technology. I took a 1" diameter copper tube about 10" high and placed a 9"  galvanized bolt down it's center. The footprint is very small as the copper tube is in a 1.25" pvc pipe sealed at the bottom. Each one of these produces .75 v. at .35 ma. I have hooked up a matrix of 25 of these 5 x 5 which
produces 3.75 volts at around 2 ma. I have connected this to a very efficient LED what will run and in about an hour drop to 2.55 volts and then continue to drop very slowly.
The light from the LED is sufficient to read by as it produces a light "circle" on a page approx.10" in diameter. The footprint of this unit is only 8x8.Think of it as a battery with 25 water cells inside of it.  I am going to make 3 more of these to be able to light 4 LEDs.
at one time.
20% of the world does not have electricity. This would provide a power source to provide light for 1-2 hours. The footprint for all four is only 256 in sq. or less than 2 sq. feet.
And it only takes water to run it. The galvanized rod I am using has been running now for almost 7 weeks with no sign of degregation at all.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: mscoffman on May 17, 2010, 11:20:28 PM
@billmehess;

Then, you really need to use JT JouleThief technology. It can cut the power
drain from Leds way down by pulsing the current at relatively high voltage.
Resulting in much better utilization of potential Led brightness without having
to max out DC power drain. Recently Jeanna posted the historical best of the
best Jt circuit. And user Circuitmall also said he had an unpublished hydrogen
electrolyser Jt circuit. By carefully optimizing circuits, mainly the transistor
type and toroid core and number of winding turns one may be surprised at
what could be accomplished. I think having continuous LED lighting for a
week or maybe two is not out of the question.
 
I like the water battery because one has to start somewhere and having
something that can clean itself out automatically while materially lasting
a long time and not being too threading seems like the way to go. There
should be some sort of plastic cell covers to keep dust and debris out of
the cells fo rhte long haul.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: GeorgeWiseman on October 05, 2015, 10:02:13 PM
Please see the wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

I see in that article that the theoretical 100% efficiency is 11.7MJ/m3
= 3250 watthours/1000 liters or 3.25 watthours per liter of gas produced. 

Thus, any electrolyzer that is producing gas at LESS than 3.25 watthours per liter is over 100% efficient by ‘accepted’ electrolysis laws. 

So an electrolyzer operating at 2.7 watthours per liter of gas would be 120% efficient.  This test was done decades ago on Yull Brown's Australian technology.

My ER 1200 WaterTorches have been independently tested to produce gas at 1.9 watthour per liter of gas, or over 170% efficient. 
My current technology (2015) can produce gas at 0.9 watthour per liter of gas, or over 360% efficient. 

How can that be true?

It can be true because Brown’s Gas is NOT straight diatomic hydrogen and oxygen.  An important ADDITIONAL gas is formed in Brown’s Gas electrolyzers that is NOT formed in traditional electrolyzers.  I call this gas Electrically Expanded Water (ExW).

ExW is the reason for all of BG’s anomalies.  ExW explains the apparent over-unity (more gas being produced than Faraday Laws predict) and both how and why mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen can exist in BG.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2015, 11:56:09 PM
Please show us how you are drying the water vapor out of the gas stream before your volume measurements. Also please show us your input power measurement setup.

ExW might "explain" things as you suggest, but what is the actual independent evidence for the production of monoatomic H and O in your electrolysis scheme, and why does _your_ system produce these things when other electrolysis systems do not?
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: GeorgeWiseman on October 07, 2015, 06:20:49 PM
Please show us how you are drying the water vapor out of the gas stream before your volume measurements. Also please show us your input power measurement setup.

I don't remove the water vapor for two reasons. 
First, because the actual water vapor is an important and useful constituent of Brown's Gas.  It enhances the gas effects. 
Second, because the ExW shows up on spectrographs as water vapor.  The difference is that if you cool the gas, the ExW doesn't condense. 
So I measure the total volume of gas coming out of the electrolyzer, cooled to ambient temperature (25°C) for SATP volume and measured using water displacement method (keeping all pressures ambient).

Quote
ExW might "explain" things as you suggest, but what is the actual independent evidence for the production of monoatomic H and O in your electrolysis scheme, and why does _your_ system produce these things when other electrolysis systems do not?

Every spectrographic test of BG (aka HHO) shows the H and O.  These values aren't high (maybe 3% at best) but they are there... and ignored. 
All electrolyzers make H & O as the water is initially split, but traditional designs 'allow' the H & O to 're-form' into H2 and O2. 
Electrolyzers designed to produce Brown's Gas make the ExW, which allows some of the H & O to remain 'trapped' and stable in the mon-atomic state. 

However, don't get caught up in the mon-atomic H & O debate, it is a side effect of what's really happening. 

I THINK the BG electrolyzers can make the ExW because of the lack of a partition or membrane that traditional electrolyzers use to separate the H2 and O2.  The ExW is formed, in the liquid, exactly in the center between the cell electrodes; I have video of this happening.

There is not enough H & O (or water vapor for that matter) to account for the gas volume being produced by efficient Brown's Gas electrolyzers.  In my opinion, the only thing that can explain the anomalous volume is my theoretical ExW. 

Electrically Expanded Water is water that has expanded into a gaseous form WITHOUT splitting into H & O.  This is then an implosive gas, because it simply reverts to liquid water as it gives up it's electrostatic energy.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: verpies on December 09, 2015, 09:20:49 AM
How does the efficiency of H2O electrolysis depend on pressure?
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: GeorgeWiseman on December 09, 2015, 05:06:42 PM
Pressure generally increases the efficiency of electrolysis by keeping the bubbles smaller, thus bubbles offer less resistance to ion flow through the fluid and take up less 'active' surface area on the electrode surfaces, again reducing resistance (also lowering overall cell voltage which increases wattage efficiency). 

However, increasing pressure in a Brown's Gas electrolyzer is dangerous because it is (overall) an explosive gas that can be ignited by static electricity, temperature and pressure.  As pressure rises, the explosive pressure spike rises exponentially... So it is much safer to keep the temperature and pressure low. 
I have video (see my YouTube channel) showing a pop bottle will contain an ambient pressure BG explosion.  I don't have video of my 70 psi test but assure you that it was one of the loudest bangs I've ever heard and I have blasting certification (I've heard a lot of loud bangs).

Another, safer, way to make BG electrolyzers efficient is to pulse the electricity.  This allows the bubbles to clear the plates and offers fresh plate surface for the next pulse.  Plate design also matters, plates that are wide and short clear their bubbles faster than plates that are narrow and tall.  The bubbles formed at the bottom of tall narrow plates interfere with plate function all the way up (stick to the plates for a much longer time).

In conclusion, as many experiments have shown, pressure is not needed to make the BG electrolyzers efficient and having high pressure is dangerous (we do NOT store the gas in cylinders, it's produced on-demand).
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: guest1289 on February 05, 2016, 10:29:20 PM
( This is a topic I know almost nothing about,  so I don't know the correct units for measuring electricity and hydrogen in this topic  )

First,

 - Say you use 5-units of electricity for 1 minute,  to produce 1/2-litre of hydrogen

 - Then, you use the absolute smallest spark possible to ignite the 1/2-litre of hydrogen

 - NOW,   if it was possible to use the energy from the explosion of the 1/2-litre of hydrogen,   to produce 'More' than  1/2-litre of hydrogen( via any method ),  then you could achieve overunity .

----------------

      So,  to use the explosion of the 1/2-litre of hydrogen to try and produce 'More'  than 1/2-litre of hydrogen,  here are 2 possible methods :
       -   I recently read that they have invented a camera that just uses the energy received by it's image sensor,  to power the whole camera,  and also,   extremely sensitive infrared-cameras have  existed for a some time.  So,  could an explosion chamber lined with these materials, convert enough of the energy from the explosion, into electricity,  remembering that heat is mostly in the infrared range
( I'm assuming that part of the electromagnetic wavelengths( frequency ) of the explosion,  could not be converted to electricity by these image-sensor materials,  and I don't know the electromagnetic frequency ranges of solar cells  )

       -  Or,  could you use the burning/exploding hydrogen,  rising( floating)  up through another container of water,  to generate more hydrogen( or other some other usefull gas ),  this is an idea I cannot expand upon,  since I know nothing about chemistry .
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: guest1289 on February 05, 2016, 11:27:00 PM
Other than using graphene,  or the latest inventions of the very ultralight foams and gels ( made of metals ) to produce the tiny current to produce hydrogen through electrolysis,   I always had the idea of the old photo-etched semiconductor chip processes,  that one of those old memory chips,  could( possibly without having all it's coatings ) provide enough electrical contacts per square-mm to increase the efficiency of  electrolysis,  and you could put these plates facing each other .
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: pomodoro on February 06, 2016, 01:18:40 AM
Burning to make electricity in any known way is not efficient. A fuel cell might be better. Platinized platinum is one of the better electrodes as it has a low over potential. Look up different materials for their hydrogen and oxygen overpotentials. As far as browns gas being special, don't believe it. Monoatomic oxygen and hydrogen are unstable. They would quickly recombine to form diatomic molecules especially on metallic surface spontaneously. In doing so a large amount of heat would be given out. This has not been shown to occur.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: guest1289 on February 06, 2016, 02:13:01 AM
I know very little about electrolysis and chemistry .

Yes, logically,  the more solid-state that a device is,  or more like a chemical-battery it is,  then it should be more efficient .

That made me realize, that molds/plants/insects etc must be very efficient in some ways.  I assume overunity cannot exist,  but I wonder how close to overunity nature can get .

Maybe copying living things could produce the most efficient batteries or generators
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: LibreEnergia on February 06, 2016, 11:57:38 PM
The wikipedia article quotes the efficiency as MJ per cubic metre of HYDROGEN ,not the volume of the evolved gases. You'll  discover there is no overunity using your claimed figures.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: forumblog on February 07, 2016, 03:13:45 AM
My apologies, I am  guest1289  using another account for something

In the two posts on this page I typed -
Quote
( This is a topic I know almost nothing about,  so I don't know the correct units for measuring electricity and hydrogen in this topic  )

Quote
I know very little about electrolysis and chemistry .

I made an understatement,  I know almost nothing about measuring electricity, and even less about chemistry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency   says
"Efficiency of modern hydrogen generators is measured by power consumed per standard volume of hydrogen (MJ/m3), assuming standard temperature and pressure of the H2."   
   
    In the idea I posted,  I just assumed I was describing the idea ,  "per standard volume of hydrogen", "assuming standard temperature and pressure of the H2",  to correctly compare inputs and outputs( performance ).  I was thinking in terms of inputs and outputs, being measured in the correct ways, for  comparison .

You typed
Quote
The wikipedia article quotes the efficiency as MJ per cubic metre of HYDROGEN ,not the volume of the evolved gases
Then I will try and think of the idea I posted in terms of   "MJ per cubic metre of HYDROGEN" .

But now,  that reminds me of an even more basic question related to this,  that I am not completely sure about, that is the following  :

Is it totally 100% accurate to say that  -
 [ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]

Here is  one  reason I question that -
    -  Imagine you have 2 magnets floating nearby each other,  and then you give one magnet the slightest-push( using the absolute minimum energy ) required for the 2 magnets to join together
    -  Now, using the absolute minimum energy,  separate those two magnets to the distance they were before
          I doubt that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.
       
    Yes,   I know the process by which atoms join together,  and separate,  must be very different to permanent-magnets,      maybe they are more similar to the types of buttons on jackets that snap-together,  but even in that type of idea,  I am still not totally convinced that it is absolutely 100% accurate to state that :
 [ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]





Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: LibreEnergia on February 07, 2016, 08:08:07 AM

Is it totally 100% accurate to say that  -
 [ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]

Here is  one  reason I question that -
    -  Imagine you have 2 magnets floating nearby each other,  and then you give one magnet the slightest-push( using the absolute minimum energy ) required for the 2 magnets to join together
    -  Now, using the absolute minimum energy,  separate those two magnets to the distance they were before
          I doubt that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.
       
    Yes,   I know the process by which atoms join together,  and separate,  must be very different to permanent-magnets,      maybe they are more similar to the types of buttons on jackets that snap-together,  but even in that type of idea,  I am still not totally convinced that it is absolutely 100% accurate to state that :
 [ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]

The analogy you give with the magnets is erroneous. It takes no energy to hold two magnets apart for any length of time. You cannot make a comparison between the energy required to 'unlock' the holding mechanism to start the magnet moving and then compare that to the energy required to separate them again and come to any meaningful conclusion.

A meaningful analogy would be to measure the work done to separate two magnets by a certain distance then measure the work that can be recovered by allowing them to move back to the original displacements. In all cases you will discover that the amount of energy recoverable is the same or less than the amount of energy required to separate them.

Exactly the same situation occurs in chemical reactions such as hydrolysis.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: forumblog on February 07, 2016, 04:20:18 PM
Quote
A meaningful analogy would be to measure the work done to separate two magnets by a certain distance then measure the work that can be recovered by allowing them to move back to the original displacements. In all cases you will discover that the amount of energy recoverable is the same or less than the amount of energy required to separate them.

Exactly the same situation occurs in chemical reactions such as hydrolysis.

    Yes,  the reason  that the  'energy recoverable from joining the magnets, could be less,  than the energy it took to separate them' ,  is because of losses in the process.   
    So if you just ignite the entire amount of hydrogen in the device in one go,  some of that energy will escape outside of the device in various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation .

   At first,  I thought that what you have typed proves the comparison example that  I made  with the magnets,  I typed 
Quote
I doubt that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.
,   but I forgot about losses in the system .

    But, in the example I made with the magnets,  I am referring to a purely hypothetical device,  with no losses in the system,   
Quote
I doubt that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.

    In a  'purely-hypothetical'  device,  with  'no losses'  in the system,
       -  use 100-Mj to create 100-ml of hydrogen, 
       -  then use .01-Mj to spark the hydrogen,    would it be  100% accurate to say that the maximum energy you could recover is 100-mj,   and also,   since there are  'no-losses'  in this hypothetical device,  could or would your recover less than  100-Mj .

     It's exactly that type of possible inequality,  that I was thinking could be exploited to try and design an overunity device,   basically,  I'm wondering if you could gain that  overunity-energy  by  igniting the full amount of  separated  hydrogen all  in one go,  using the tiniest spark possible .
    I'm wondering if that  single combustion of the full amount of hydrogen,   could produce more energy,  than it took to produce that very same amount of hydrogen .

    I think the concept I am trying to put forward, will become a bit too confusing for me, and there was another way that of was thinking of explaining it,  that I can't remember now .

   But you have answered the question anyway, especially since a totally-loss-less device cannot actually exist
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: GeorgeWiseman on February 07, 2016, 08:41:09 PM
As far as browns gas being special, don't believe it. Monoatomic oxygen and hydrogen are unstable. They would quickly recombine to form diatomic molecules especially on metallic surface spontaneously. In doing so a large amount of heat would be given out. This has not been shown to occur.
It is true that mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen normally devolve into their diatomic forms quickly and spontaneously (not requiring a catalyst like hydrogen peroxide would). 
That's WHY Brown's Gas is special because it DOES contain a measurable and stable volume of mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen.  I have spectrographic charts (independently tested) to show this.  I'm putting together a document to share all this data.
I do not know exactly why the mon-atomic gasses are stable, but suspect it is because of the electrically expanded water (ExW) that is generated in BG electrolyzers.  ExW is NOT generated in 'normal' electrolyzers that separate the oxygen and hydrogen.  ExW seems to hold the mon-atomic constituents in a 'matrix' so that do not touch each other and combine into their di-atomic forms.
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: guest1289 on February 08, 2016, 02:55:13 AM
( I know nothing about chemistry,  and very little about electricity )

   In my idea,  of a  'purely-hypothetical'  device,  with  'no energy losses in the system( no energy leaving the device )'

       -  First,  use  100-Mj  to create 100-ml of hydrogen, 
       -  Then,  use .001-Mj to spark the 100-ml of hydrogen,

    My idea is to either : 
       -  use the energy recovered from the combustion of the 100-ml of hydrogen( maximum recovery of energy ),
       -  or,  use the burning cloud of the 100-ml-of-hydrogen( maybe rising up through another level of water )
            To  'Create'  'More Than'  100-ml-of-hydrogen.

            So, obviously, repeating that in each cycle,  would mean that you would be constantly creating more and more  hydrogen,  in each cycle.

    (  I know nothing about what is created by a burning cloud of hydrogen,  rising up through water , it's just a random idea )

    (  The idea that you are constantly creating more and more hydrogen,  would overcome any energy-losses  in a real device  )

        (  I assume people almost 200 years ago,  probably had the same idea as me,  indicating it is not possible  )
Title: Re: Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis
Post by: guest1289 on February 08, 2016, 06:12:30 PM
(  Just for my own purposes, I'm just clarifying my idea again  )

   (  Note : That by using things like graphene and the recently invented very ultralight gels/foams made of metal( or even modified  IC/semiconductor memory chips ),  in order to use less power to get hydrogen from water,  the efficiency of electrolysis is increased.   
     I recently discovered that people have already used these materials to increase the efficiency of electrolysis,  although I don't know if anyone ever tried  modified  IC/semiconductor memory chips  )

    In my idea,  of a  'purely-hypothetical'  device,  with  'no energy losses in the system( no energy leaving the device )'

       -  First,  use  25-Mj  to create 100-cubic-ml-of-hydrogen, 
       -  Then,  use .001-Mj to spark the full amount of 100-cubic-ml-of-hydrogen all in one go( or can  platinum  spark the hydrogen  ?  )

      My idea is that the 100-cubic-ml-of-hydrogen produced,  could contain 'More'  Mj,   than the 25-Mj used to produce it,    and that when the 100-cubic-ml-of-hydrogen  is ignited in one go,  then more than  25-Mj could be recovered as electricity. 
      Or,   that the  burning cloud of '100-cubic-ml-of-hydrogen' could somehow be used to create more than 100-cubic-ml-of-hydrogen.

      So,  with each new repetition of that cycle,  you are producing more electricity and or hydrogen,  and that in turn allows you to produce more hydrogen and or electricity .

     This could be a device that repeats this process for say  4-cycles( maybe each cycle having it's own container of water and combustion chamber ),  before it returns to the beginning.

    So,  in a real device,  any energy-losses( energy leaving the device ) are offset by this effect of constantly producing more electricity and or hydrogen in each cycle .